Newspapers can be valuable wayfinding tools to direct our attention to broader issues, but as secondary sources, must be used in proper balance. In February and March of 1990, CSUN’s campus paper, The Daily Sundial, ran two front-page articles and two thoughtful editorials from a Deaf student and working interpreter. These spell out the themes still swirling in our industry today:
| • growing pains: supply vs. demand & budgeting |
| • working conditions: teaming, pay, and benefits |
| • employee classification & collective bargaining |
| • rumor and reaction vs. dialogue and diplomacy |
All four items are shown below in chronological order, and the preceding dates link to the respective pages from the Sundial Archive. Click on the image to see a larger version. Any readability problems with the images are due to the archival format, and cannot be adjusted here.
Cover Story 2 — 1 March 1990 p. 1
From a Veteran Interpreter — 1 March 1990 p. 5:
From a Deaf Upperclassman — 7 March 1990 p. 5:
This story is particularly interesting when considering California’s legacy of signed language interpreters leveraging their collective position in the workplace. Perhaps the seeds of our colleagues’ decision to join the California Federation of Interpreters were planted a quarter century ago.
If you are interested in researching more 20th-century interpreting history, please consult the Sundial Archive at CSUN’s Oviatt Library. There are still gaps in the coverage, but staff are working to add more back issues to complete the collection.
Discreet and civil comments welcomed.
I am interested also in the lack of evolution in modern journalism on Deaf and interpreting issues. This reporter is (rightly) called out by both an interpreter and a Deaf journalism student for the problems in the original report. It seems that 99% of all articles I see churned up in the online news sources have a seemingly endless list of community representatives decrying the inaccuracies of the reporting.
I find it illuminating to see that a crisis of interpreter coverage existed even before the ADA became law. We seem to have a constant shortage in this field. Despite the roughly 16,000 members of RID, we are still drowning in demand for our services. I would have hoped that we would have figured this out better in the past 20+ years.
I have been misquoted after in-person interviews, and even in responses I have given via e-mail exchange. And newspapers write history books. :^/
These are student reporters, after all. It’s a terrific example of how and why to craft a classy editorial to correct the public record, for some nerd to find decades later.
How many of those RID members are Certifed? Many states have certification requirements but not all RID members are certified.
According to the last annual report (http://www.rid.org/2014-annual-report/#mem-svcs), there are 9,972 certified members of RID. It’s interesting to see as well that California has the highest saturation point of certified members, which speaks to the point that Leahy makes about organization beginning in California and appearing again in this new generation. Perhaps California is the only state with the critical mass necessary to encourage these actions?